Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Sad but true. Bioware's dialog system is a lot of the time extremely redundant in that it just gives you a shitton of options you could have just better gotten as one continous dialog between characters, or *gasp* a proper cutcene. It's like their dialog system is an excuse to create cheap fragmented dialog and avoid proper cutcenes. It was innovative the first time, but it gets reddundant and annoying as it goes on. The trinary nature of the options is also annoying, it would be much better to get less often, and instead get a whole bunch of them when it matters. And in bioware games the options you pick hardly matter, so it's more like a chore.

Having maps like that is fine. It's just the whole concept of a game based on 1-base that's kind of not so appealing.

One base? Are you kidding? I need to be able to build anywhere, I need my backup bases!

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix

Sad but true. Bioware's dialog system is a lot of the time extremely redundant in that it just gives you a shitton of options you could have just better gotten as one continous dialog between characters, or *gasp* a proper cutcene. It's like their dialog system is an excuse to create cheap fragmented dialog and avoid proper cutcenes. It was innovative the first time, but it gets reddundant and annoying as it goes on. The trinary nature of the options is also annoying, it would be much better to get less often, and instead get a whole bunch of them when it matters. And in bioware games the options you pick hardly matter, so it's more like a chore.

Yet, when JRPG's do this, many gamers complain that it's "too linear."

Yet, when JRPG's do this, many gamers complain that it's "too linear."

If anything Bioware at best just masks its linearity. I think you can even say a game can be non-linear just from it's dialog options. IMO techniques like what Raidient Historia did are much more non-linear. And typically just being different is what makes it non-linear, like say how Terraria works, or most "random content/maps" games work.

Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power

If you played as the infantry general in Generals Zero Hour, you would learn how not to underestimate the cheap ant rush.

Build 5 barracks. Churn out hackers in one, TH and RI on the other 4. Watch the horrified look on your opponent's face at the 10th minute.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiresias

And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs?

Whatever you may think of RA3's style, they at least got this part right: Peacekeepers and Imperial Warriors do in fact storm garrisoned buildings; Conscripts toss Molotovs. None of these processes are instant.

On another note, the way the fourth Allied mission (Gibraltar) is designed allows you to pretty much break it if you're smart...

Spoiler for Explanation:

once your base is set up, what triggers the next part of the mission is destroying the four turrets at the dock entrance. It's worth taking the time to capture the entire base behind those first;

in fact, before destroying those turrets, disguise a Spy and park him in the southeast corner of the map. Bringing up the rear of Naomi's force is a Shogun (two in very close line abreast on Hard), and... consider it $1000 very well spent...

__________________

White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
"Destroyed overnight, or the next one's free."Arc Nova

- Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
-C&C RTS (vs Starcraft)
-Rumor that Dragon Age will become/have an online component. (vs Diablo 3)

To be honest, it is perfectly fine to have competition, which will drive some interesting games hopefully. However, I shall mourn the loss of Kotor RPG as a causality of the MMO.

You can play SWTOR as if you were playing KOTOR; completely alone, and just for the story, if you so wish. Minimize the chat tab and make sure you have no friendly/enemy player nameplates on, and you wouldn't even realize you weren't playing a single player RPG.

Anyways, as to the topic on hand, I'm not sure how I feel about "Bioware" doing this game (why do we still call them Bioware seeing how long it's been since they were bought by EA).

Maybe it's just me, but I was once a big fan of the Command & Conquer series not for its innovative RTS mechanics, but for its ultra cheesy/campy stories and 'cutscenes'. And while we could argue some of Bioware's stories are...a bit out there in cheese factor (DA 2, lulz), I have a hard time seeing Bioware's writers giving us the type of camp the Command & Conquer series is renown for.

I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about a Command & Conquer that features you, the protagonist, having to gather some companions; all of whom are going to be bisexual and romanceable; all the while following a cleverly disguised, highly linear story that has you first: a) Gather your companions, b) deal with a plot point, c) finish gathering your companions, d) deal with another plot point, e) deal with a plot twist, f) beat the big bad in a climax.

If it seems I'm a bit cynical, it's because Bioware has followed the almost exact same general script for every game they've made since KOTOR. Here's hoping they shake things up, or even better, that the "Bioware" label this time really is just a label, and that that particular studio doesn't actually involve any original Bioware employees, because as much as I like the remnants of Bioware, I'm not sure I actually want them to be touching this RTS franchise.

I LOL'd pretty hard at this. And yes, Bioware? I thought the successor was supposed to be Victory Games or something

They are. While Victory Games may answer to Bioware management, they're still a separate operation. In practice, I don't see much change, aside from the fact that Muzyka and Zeschuk now occupy one level of supervision.

For branding purposes, EA has simply rolled a number of existing divisions under the Bioware label. Mythic Games (Bioware Mythic), EA2D (Bioware San Francisco), Victory Games (Bioware Victory).

Quote:

Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.

That's a pre-existing contract between pre-EA Bioware and LucasArts. While it'll be a huge moneymaker for EA, they had nothing to do with its inception.

You can play SWTOR as if you were playing KOTOR; completely alone, and just for the story, if you so wish. Minimize the chat tab and make sure you have no friendly/enemy player nameplates on, and you wouldn't even realize you weren't playing a single player RPG.

After playing the beta for a little bit, I disagree creb. Throughout my playthrough I never once felt like I was playing Kotor or an RPG, just a themepark MMO like WoW. I saw it as an MMO with a lot of cutscenes and romances, but none of it changed the fact that I never found the story compelling. Furthermore, in the end it was just going to end with raiding each week for the next set of gear. Compared to Kotor 2, Kotor 1, Planescape Torment, Fallout 1/2, New Vegas, Morrowind, etc I felt nothing from TOR.

TOR may have more cutscenes than other MMOs, but it does not make inherently a strong RPG, especially in terms of writing. Bioware has done RPG before and so I do not see why TOR seems weaker than Kotor 1. Simply put, I just do not see how this is meant to be a better option than Kotor 3. I hope my post does not sound offensive or fatalistic, because I would love to debate about TOR's RPG elements, but perhaps a C&C thread is not the best place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJR

That's a pre-existing contract between pre-EA Bioware and LucasArts. While it'll be a huge moneymaker for EA, they had nothing to do with its inception.

That is good to know and thank you for telling me, yet I still think Bioware is strangely coming to mirror Blizzard.

If you meant by the combat drop with chinooks, then i am against that. Slowing down your own resource gathering , while at the same time the risking losing your chinook (1200 is not cheap) because they can't handle rockets that well, is hardly strategical. Also with some micro management you can evacuate the building before the chinook can clear the building while leaving the chinook stuck defenceless and most likely killed.

The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?

I think things like that with Infantry are probably why C&C needs to take at least a few ques from games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. Infantry need to be given more options with regards to taking cover, ambushing, moving over difficult terrain or staying hidden to help them survive.

I'm wondering if something like that is on the developers mind. Cause I thought it was rather suspicious that the EU tanks in the trailer had fully modeled pintle mounted machine guns. Traditionally, Command and Conquer has been pretty steadfast against basic tanks being armed with anti infantry weapons (aside from running them over). If tanks now have anti infantry machine guns, that to me suggests that they're mixing up how infantry work compared to vehicles in this game.

The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?

Well it worked as a rushstrategy against GLA in smaller maps though. Getting flashbang early is not the thing that you want if you want to rush gla supplies and stop their armsdealer from being build at all with a small group of rockvees. Sometimes they will hide workers in the buildings ike in the middle of tournament desert map. In that rare case you might want to use the rangers and a chinook with combat drop to prevent them from building another base while you are decimating his current main base with rockvees.

The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?

I think things like that with Infantry are probably why C&C needs to take at least a few ques from games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. Infantry need to be given more options with regards to taking cover, ambushing, moving over difficult terrain or staying hidden to help them survive.

I'm wondering if something like that is on the developers mind. Cause I thought it was rather suspicious that the EU tanks in the trailer had fully modeled pintle mounted machine guns. Traditionally, Command and Conquer has been pretty steadfast against basic tanks being armed with anti infantry weapons (aside from running them over). If tanks now have anti infantry machine guns, that to me suggests that they're mixing up how infantry work compared to vehicles in this game.

Ranger drop is used in urban and large maps to secure chokepoints whilw your missile defenders are being built in early game, where only infantry is available.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I am sure he meant the chinook ability with rangers to clear garrisoned buildings, not the actual drop strategy with a chinook to disrupt expanding and/or rushing your opponent with it.

That is what I meant. When in early game everyone spent their cash researching capture. Ranger drop is a good way to take over your opponent's garrisoned buildings.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

That is what I meant. When in early game everyone spent their cash researching capture. Ranger drop is a good way to take over your opponent's garrisoned buildings.

I don't actually remember people online playing on big maps with lot's of buildings in it thought. The most played maps that i have seen are Tournament desert (2 players map), tournament island (4 players) and the stupidly huge twilight flame map (8 players). Out of the 3 maps only desert had buildings and those buildings in the middle were more for the show, because all of them have low health and are already quite damaged. Also the map is quite small, so even GLA would beat you to it before usa can build chinooks from the supply centre. You can easily take the west or east routes and completely bypass the centre, leaving yourself open if you wasted too much money on infantry. Exception is GLA , because the tunnels they build comes with 2 free rpg troopers.

There are other maps that are played, but they only have buildings near the extra resources as a way to promote expanding instead of turtling, there were hardly any maps that have conveniently many buildings on choke points or else it would have been an unfair advantage for USA or GLA. There were always around those buildings or bunkers. Unless you count those fanmade mod maps.

edit: researching capture building is only usefull if you have acces to oil fields nearby. Because researching it is slow, it's expensive at the beginning because building 1 barrack, 1-2 rangers (for the actual capture and some defence against infantry) and a few rocket infantry (you need atleast a few because capture building took a long time to complete and you can't build something from your barracks while researching it) Also it might make you vulnerable to rush tactics with early vehicles like technical rushes from GLA and gattling tank from China or even Rockvees (humvees with missile defenders obiously) rushes that are only there to kill your chinooks.

edit: i am slightly overreacting and too passionate, but i used to play this game online very actively and local tournaments when i was younger. I somewhat exprienced the game on a serious and high competitive level.
Even knew how to abuse some minor exploits before they were patched in those plays. Like ordering your units that have some kind of splash damage ( like tank and artillery shells or rockets) to force attack ground instead of the actual target. Because the damage is done against the ground (which has no actual resistances) the splash damage from your attacks will do the full damage on anything. Meaning a nuke or scud launcher could take out a base defence in 1 shot instead of 2-3 shots.
Or the infamous scud storm bug from zero hour, when a not completely build scud storm can fire without a recharge time (it still has the 30 second delay before hitting the area like the normal superweapon though)